Read the full judgment text of HCCT 13/2017 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 18 June 2017 before Deputy High Court Judge Saunders.
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings — Security for costs — Out‑of‑jurisdiction plaintiff — Defendant’s application under Order 23, rule 1 — Plaintiff resident outside Hong Kong — Whether discretion to order security for costs should be exercised — Prior judgment HCCT 19/2013 with virtually identical facts and defences decided wholly in favour of a similar plaintiff — Defendant’s arguable defence but likely to fail on merits — Court refuses to order security for costs — Plaintiff entitled to costs on application with summary assessment ordered. Sugisaki sued Hsin Chong for unlawful detention and conversion of construction plant and equipment, claiming substantial damages and return of items. The defendants sought security for costs on the ground that Sugisaki is abroad and may be unable to pay costs. The court reviewed principles requiring consideration of defendants’ prospects of success in a broad‑brush manner and examined the prior judgment involving a similarly situated plaintiff (Maruken) which was decided in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants’ three distinctions were not material on the facts and law. The court found Sugisaki had a strong case with a high probability of success, making security for costs unjust. The application was refused, and costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff with a summary assessment directed.
Legal issues: Security for costs against out‑of‑jurisdiction plaintiff
Outcome: Hsin Chong’s application for security for costs is refused
Cites 1 case